What makes people irrational thinkers?

[The Architect Of Fate]

 For example, people have different unmediated experiences. While most are common and trivial, on rare occasions some people do have numinous experiences that are realer-than-real. As someone who has had enough such mystical experiences that I cannot deny them, I still recognize that they are properly basic to me alone. [...]

Mystical experiences are unfounded dreck

[Ranjr]

We can enjoy magical experiences without giving credit to anyone but ourselves and the people who help us perceive parts of life as particularly kickass.

[polymath257]

@polymath257  hasn't proven either his nominalism or radical empiricism but expects everyone else to take it for granted.

Finally, I would prefer not to think of atheism and theism as opposing “sides”. Maybe each is working a different side of the same problem.

No, I don't. I simply see it as the simplest explanation consistent with the facts as we know them.

yes, I consider platonism to be a very basic philosophical mistake. it leads to fantasies that cannot be tested.

And *that* is the critical aspect to me: is there a reliable way to differentiate between true ideas and false ideas? Mere consistency is very far from being enough.

So, in mathematics, there is the notion of formal proof. We have certain axioms that are accepted (not 'true', but accepted) and any proposed truth must be reducible to those axioms.

In the sciences, when there is a dispute, an experiment is proposed to resolve the dispute. Then actual observation determines who is wrong. At no point is any general idea proven to be true, but it is possible to prove some to be false. If there is no experiment possible that can resolve the dispute, then the dispute is said to be meaningless.

So, what process do you propose in metaphysics to resolve disputes? Suppose I am a strong physicalist and you are not. How can we reliably determine who is wrong?

If there is no such way (and the history of philosophy shows that to be the case), then the subject does not produce knowledge. It produces opinions with arguments in their support.

So, yes, I would like to separate truth from falsehood. What I have seen is that those proposing theistic metaphysics don't actually give arguments for their positions that can distinguish truth from falsity. They make claims, such as 'the physical world is inherently contingent' and fail to even define properly the terms being used. What does it mean to be 'physical'? What does it mean to be 'contingent'? How could you determine whether the physical world is contingent or not?

We know that the physical world exists (well, at least we do if we have proceeded beyond solipsism). Why add unnecessary levels on top of that for explanations? Why is it that physical reality can't be the base level for explanations?

[polymath257]

@Simon Moon, what I question is whether meeting a “burden of proof” is a useful epistemic obligation for a couple of reasons.

First, I agree with @Belacqua; it’s more of a debate tactic than tool of serious inquiry. If the goal is, as you wrote, to “separate fact from fiction” then reliving critics of a proposition from any obligation to defend their opposition to it. If the goal is to increase understanding, allowing "one side" to be a default position is literally half as effective.

I see it more as a 'conflict resolution' tactic. We have people with different opinions. How can we sensibly go about determining who is correct and who is not? And, given the possibility that neither may be correct, how can we eliminate the falsehood?

One method of reducing flights of fancy that are not likely to be true is to require that there be some support for the viewpoint. That support is the burden of proof. The one making a positive existential claim is the one that needs to supply the evidence for that claim.

The alternative, to ask that those who disagree be able to prove without a doubt that an idea is wrong, is much less useful. Why? Because there are ideas that are *consistent* without being *true*. All that asking for proof against does is shows an idea is inconsistent. While a useful filter at times, it is a very, very weak one. The goal is to determine whether an idea is false or not. While inconsistency does prove falsity, While inconsistency does imply falsity, there are many false ideas that are perfectly consistent.

So, the point of the burden of proof is to deal with the distinction between 'consistent' and 'true'. We ask for a reason to believe a new idea and not simply a reason to not believe it. The burden of proof is a 'BS elimination scheme'.

[Simon Moon]

For example, people have different unmediated experiences. While most are common and trivial, on rare occasions some people do have numinous experience that are realer-than-real. As someone who has had enough such mystical experiences that I cannot deny them, I still recognize that they are properly basic to me alone.

This is interesting to me.

How does one go about differentiating between a 'real' numinous experience that are realer-than-real, mystical experience, and one that is caused by a real, but transitory alteration in mental state, that just seems like a 'real' numinous and mystical experience, but was completely natural?

I am sure that you believe, that some percentage of people, who sincerely claim they had a real numinous and mystical experience, were actually misinterpreting an altered mental brain state.

I am sure the vast majority of schizophrenics, who claim to have mystical experiences, sincerely believe they are real.

What about all the people that believe in different gods than you do, who sincerely claim to have had a 'real' numinous experience that are realer-than-real, and a mystical experience with their god? Are they all mistaking?

[Simon Moon]

For example, people have different unmediated experiences. While most are common and trivial, on rare occasions some people do have numinous experience that are realer-than-real. As someone who has had enough such mystical experiences that I cannot deny them, I still recognize that they are properly basic to me alone.

This is interesting to me.

How does one go about differentiating between a 'real' numinous experience that are realer-than-real, mystical experience, and one that is caused by a real, but transitory alteration in mental state, that just seems like a 'real' numinous and mystical experience, but was completely natural?

I am sure that you believe, that some percentage of people, who sincerely claim they had a real numinous and mystical experience, were actually misinterpreting an altered mental brain state.

I am sure the vast majority of schizophrenics, who claim to have mystical experiences, sincerely believe they are real.

What about all the people that believe in different gods than you do, who sincerely claim to have had a 'real' numinous experience that are realer-than-real, and a mystical experience with their god? Are they all mistaking?

I have told this story previously on this forum, but I will tell it again.

I have a good friend (we grew up surfing together) that in his early 20's got hooked on meth and alcohol.

Of course his life fell apart, he was living on the street, doing petty crimes for drug money, etc. Then one day, he wandered into a Hindu temple near downtown LA, and claims to have had a mystical experience with a Hindu god, and instantaneously quit drugs and alcohol. He hasn't had anything since that day almost a decade ago.

He got his life together, started his own successful tile contracting business, got married, and has a kid. To this day, he is a Hindu.

So, my question is; did he have an actual real numinous and mystical experience, with the Hindu gods? If you don't think he did, how do you tell the difference between his 'not real' mystical experience, and a 'real' one? How is he supposed to tell the difference?

[Rahn127]

This is interesting to me.

How does one go about differentiating between a 'real' numinous experience that are realer-than-real, mystical experience, and one that is caused by a real, but transitory alteration in mental state, that just seems like a 'real' numinous and mystical experience, but was completely natural?

I am sure that you believe, that some percentage of people, who sincerely claim they had a real numinous and mystical experience, were actually misinterpreting an altered mental brain state.

I am sure the vast majority of schizophrenics, who claim to have mystical experiences, sincerely believe they are real.

What about all the people that believe in different gods than you do, who sincerely claim to have had a 'real' numinous experience that are realer-than-real, and a mystical experience with their god? Are they all mistaking?

I have told this story previously on this forum, but I will tell it again.

I have a good friend (we grew up surfing together) that in his early 20's got hooked on meth and alcohol.

Of course his life fell apart, he was living on the street, doing petty crimes for drug money, etc. Then one day, he wandered into a Hindu temple near downtown LA, and claims to have had a mystical experience with a Hindu god, and instantaneously quit drugs and alcohol. He hasn't had anything since that day almost a decade ago.

He got his life together, started his own successful tile contracting business, got married, and has a kid. To this day, he is a Hindu.

So, my question is; did he have an actual real numinous and mystical experience, with the Hindu gods? If you don't think he did, how do you tell the difference between his 'not real' mystical experience, and a 'real' one? How is he supposed to tell the difference?

We can have very meaningful experiences and attribute those experiences to anything we want, but that would be a lie. The truth is our brains create those experiences.

When we lie to ourselves and believe that lie to be the truth, then yes it's difficult to tell that truthful lie from the truth.

What we have to do is think critically about every experience that seems to hold a significant life changing moment.

Is it more reasonable to think an omnipotent being that cannot be detected, somehow cares about a human being in a universe of trillions of galaxies that IT caused this change or maybe the person's own brain believes a grand lie to make his life better ?

We lie to ourselves all the time.
Small things. I'm a good looking guy. I'm fun at parties. My farts don't stink. My clothes look good. I work hard all the time. I'm great at sex. All my thoughts are completely rational.

We don't have grand experiences all the time, but when we do we place that moment as THE truth of what we WANT it to be.

You can tell the difference between a real mystical experience and a fake one by realizing that they are all are fake. They all happen in our brains.

[Simon Moon]

I have told this story previously on this forum, but I will tell it again.

I have a good friend (we grew up surfing together) that in his early 20's got hooked on meth and alcohol.

Of course his life fell apart, he was living on the street, doing petty crimes for drug money, etc. Then one day, he wandered into a Hindu temple near downtown LA, and claims to have had a mystical experience with a Hindu god, and instantaneously quit drugs and alcohol. He hasn't had anything since that day almost a decade ago.

He got his life together, started his own successful tile contracting business, got married, and has a kid. To this day, he is a Hindu.

So, my question is; did he have an actual real numinous and mystical experience, with the Hindu gods? If you don't think he did, how do you tell the difference between his 'not real' mystical experience, and a 'real' one? How is he supposed to tell the difference?

We can have very meaningful experiences and attribute those experiences to anything we want, but that would be a lie. The truth is our brains create those experiences.

When we lie to ourselves and believe that lie to be the truth, then yes it's difficult to tell that truthful lie from the truth.

What we have to do is think critically about every experience that seems to hold a significant life changing moment.

Is it more reasonable to think an omnipotent being that cannot be detected, somehow cares about a human being in a universe of trillions of galaxies that IT caused this change or maybe the person's own brain believes a grand lie to make his life better ?

We lie to ourselves all the time.
Small things. I'm a good looking guy. I'm fun at parties. My farts don't stink. My clothes look good. I work hard all the time. I'm great at sex. All my thoughts are completely rational.

We don't have grand experiences all the time, but when we do we place that moment as THE truth of what we WANT it to be.

You can tell the difference between a real mystical experience and a fake one by realizing that they are all are fake. They all happen in our brains.

Of course what you say is true.

I am trying to ask Neo-Scholastic some Socratic questions in order to get him to question his own assumptions, presuppositions and whether the things he thinks are properly basic, really are.

While I will not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that there are no 'real mystical' experiences with a god, I see absolutely no method to differentiate a real one, with one that has been created by our own minds. And the only way around it for a believer, is a road paved with fallacy after fallacy.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't really see how it's relevant. I've had mystic experiences too, and never believed in gods. It's not as if the one is a comment on the other. We hear that, on the inarguable reality of these experiences, he can't discount this or that.....but.....I've had those experiences, equally inarguable, and still have no trouble discounting the same this's and that's.

[polymath257]

I don't really see how it's relevant.  I've had mystic experiences too, and never believed in gods.  It's not as if the one is a comment on the other.  We hear that, on the inarguable reality of these experiences, he can't discount this or that.....but.....I've had those experiences, equally inarguable, and still have no trouble discounting the same this's and that's.

I'd say quite a few people have had these experiences and simply said 'wow, that was a strange quirk of my mind' and continued on down the road.

My personal view is that it is likely there is a circuit (or analog) in our brains that determines that something coming through is 'important'. When it goes into overdrive, the something is 'very important' and carries a twinge of 'wow, that is amazing'. That can easily lead to 'religious experiences'.

This view is supported by the fact that religious experiences are more likely under conditions of stress or drug use (psychedelics can lead to such).